Allowed

Bharat Baliram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2024/2700/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim application filed by an applicant convicted under Section 302 IPC facing a 10-year incarceration, seeking suspension of sentence and bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who have already been released by higher courts.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended and applicant enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties and complying with reporting conditions to the trial court until the appeal is

Bharat Baliram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

NISHA Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP SANDEEP CHITNISDate: 2024.01.11 CHITNIS 11:40:26 +0530

¶2

18-ia.2700.2021.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2700 OF 2021 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.425 OF 2018

¶6

Bharat Baliram Patil

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Kuldeep Patil i/b Mr. Vivek V. Salunke, for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, Addl.P.P for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 8^th JANUARY 2024

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

By this interim application, the applicant (original accused

¶16

No.9) seeks suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail,

¶17

pending the hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid appeal.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the applicant seeks bail on the ground

¶19

of parity. He submits that identically placed co-accused have either

1/5

N. S. Chitnis

18-ia.2700.2021.doc

been released by the Apex Court or by this Court, having regard to the long period of their incarceration ranging between 8 to 10 years. The said orders have been annexed to this application and one of the last order is tendered across the bar i.e. the order dated 20^th December 2023 passed by this Court (Coram: Prakash D. Naik & N. R. Borkar, JJ.) in an application filed by co-accused – Ranbul @Ranshya Chandrakant Patil.

¶24

Learned APP does not dispute the fact that the applicant is in custody for about 10 years from 2012, except the period when the applicant was out on Covid bail i.e. for a period of 1 1/2 year.

¶25

Perused the papers as well as the orders passed by the Apex Court and this Court.

¶26

The applicant (original accused No.13) alongwith other coaccused vide judgment and order dated 7^th March 2018, passed by

¶27

learned District Judge – 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in

2/5

N. S. Chitnis

18-ia.2700.2021.doc

Sessions Case No.24 of 2013, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences. The Apex Court as well as this Court have granted bail to the co-accused in the said case, only having regard to their long incarceration and the likelihood of their appeal not reaching in the immediate near future.

¶32

As far as the applicant is concerned, the accusation is general in nature and no specific overt act is attributed to him. The role of the applicant is similar to that of other co-accused, whose sentences have been suspended and who are enlarged on bail.

¶33

Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and the applicant’s sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of his Appeal, on the following terms and conditions :-

3/5

N. S. Chitnis

18-ia.2700.2021.doc

ORDER

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in

¶39

the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶40

ii) The Applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three months on the first Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., till his Appeal is finally disposed of;

¶41

iii) The Applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶42

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.

4/5

N. S. Chitnis

18-ia.2700.2021.doc

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶47

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶48

order.

¶49

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

¶50

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶51

5/5

¶52

N. S. Chitnis

Bharat Baliram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Baliram Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Kanhu Khandale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Sameerkumar Prakash Awasare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ishan Ashok Fadake Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Laxman Kamadi Vs State of Maharashtra

Siraj Ibrahim Chanawalla Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad Baliram Patil Vs State of Maharashtra